Welcome

Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

I'm blaming you for trying to excuse away this world-wide broadcasting of this guy's personal information. It is a far cry from paying and procuring this information personallly than it is to plaster it world-wide for anyone and everyone to see. I am well aware that information like this can be obtained...that is NOT the same thing as spreading it the world over - and you damn well know it.

I didn't make an excuse for anyone. I just told you that it was public information. You know we wouldn't have been having this conversation if the guy would have disclosed before having unprotected sex. Not once but twice.

Which, pardon me for asking, but it does beg the question: How exactly did HIV and AIDS just kinda "sneak up" on old Jim there? I mean - here you were...with one partner already in the ground from this. Did it never occur to Jim to, ya know...GET AN HIV TEST? Not once? Did it not occur to you to perhaps push the issue, given your previous loss? If this was explained somewhere in that mammoth thread and I missed it, I apologize. I didn't see it. But if we're so intent on painting this DJ kid here as such a "typhoid Mary", and for quarantines as a not-so-bad idea, I just couldn't help that it did come to mind above when reading all this...just how did AIDS sneak up on someone like Jim? If I was in that situation, I would have made routine testing mandatory out of common sense.

Damn Tim that's pretty cold and callous of you. I think if the DJ had any common sense after his first bout with the law he would have used some common sense himself, whether we agree with it or not. Have you ever given an ounce of thought that not everyone is going to agree with your stance here? Does it make them a bad person for not doing so?

Pretty darn adamant that those with HIV have no responsibility in the matter aren't you? I agree that it is a two way street, but either way you look at it people like you and I have made the same mistake that others will likely follow. Yes we take responsibility for our own infection, but does that mean that we now turn a blind eye if someone does not care if they infect others?

Do you care if you infect someone? You don't have to answer that because personally I think you are a good guy and do care, unlike this fantastic DJ. You can hate me for my opinion on the matter, I'll listen to yours with an open mind... however I may not agree with you.

I don't think you want to dig at me too much about the notion of doing things without thinking though the effect it has on others, now do you? No, I don't so.

I made a perfectly valid question, IMO. If something like quarantining people seems totally reasonable for some people on here, would not getting a routine HIV test every now and then (especially when in a relationship with someone wh had already lost a partner to that very thing) also not be a reasonable step to take?

I don't think you want to dig at me too much about the notion of doing things without thinking though the effect it has on others, now do you? No, I don't so.

Feel free my friend I am all ears, but before you do make sure you have your facts straight. I have a very strong feeling I know what you are getting at and on that subject I have never given my side of the story..

Keep it civil, guys. Just because we're a few posts past warnings left by two moderators - David and Andy - doesn't make them irrelevant. Stop taking pot shots at each other and stay on topic or this thread is going to be locked and a few people given time outs.

This is the LAST time a warning will appear in this thread. Watch your fingers guys and think before you post.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

I really do wonder about the guy wh0o gave the DJ an STi, what he's thinking etc. Will he go to a clinic? What's he been up to? etc (but as the authorities go, clearly not so much of a public heath hazard)

I agree with Tim, I would shag the DJ, I seen a pic, he looks kinda hot

Have there been specific warnings to particular people, or just a generalized "keep it civil" thing? This is one problem I sometimes have on this board -- if there are warnings they need to be particular, and probably in addition to a moderator post in the thread a PM should be sent as well.

At any rate, I have no clue who has been warned and for what infraction. If that was just a general statement, Ann, disregard this question

Have there been specific warnings to particular people, or just a generalized "keep it civil" thing? This is one problem I sometimes have on this board -- if there are warnings they need to be particular, and probably in addition to a moderator post in the thread a PM should be sent as well.

At any rate, I have no clue who has been warned and for what infraction. If that was just a general statement, Ann, disregard this question

Fair comment, Philly.

It was pretty much meant as a general warning, although it was the tit-for-tat antics of Thunter, Rod and Skeebo which prompted me to issue a final warning. I thought it was pretty obvious who was edging over the line.

But you're right, in future I'll be more specific as to whether I'm being general or ... um ... specific.

Ann

edited to add... Sometimes PMs are sent as well. It all depends on the situation and the severity of the problem.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Which, pardon me for asking, but it does beg the question: How exactly did HIV and AIDS just kinda "sneak up" on old Jim there?

Though it has nothing to do with some guy in NC knowingly spreading HIV, and though I was a little put-off by the tone of your questions about a guy that has barely been ashes sitting in an urn in my living room for the last 5 months, if everyone will allow a hijack, here's the scoop.

I spent years and years as only Jim's friend, for two reasons. The most pressing reason was that I did not want to die on him (and I've been sick enough off and on through the years for this to have been a possibility) and leave him as grief-stricken as I was losing Randy. Less pressing, but equally important, was that I did not want to pass this disease on to him. Between the years from Jim's last long-term partner (of 10 yrs) to when we moved our relationship from platonic to sexual, Jim was tested several times and the results were always negative. During those years, I also learned more about safe sex, and though I was never entirely comfortable, I placed my trust that condoms would keep us as a sero-discordant couple.

Looking back now, I see how we (Jim and I) failed though. We spent too much of our time worried about my health. I struggled to recover from pneumonia twice in two years; I struggled with crappy side effects from nearly every med I've taken; I've only averaged 167 tcells over the last 15 yrs; and it took ten long-ass years to finally reach undetectable.

Though his father died of a heart attack at 42 and his mom died of cancer at 56, Jim was always healthy as a horse. No colds, no flu, only a case of appendicitis that required an operation. Why, the guy never even have a single cavity!! So it looked like he was more like his grandmother, who lived to 87 with hardly any health problems. But obviously, we should have been as concerned about Jim's health as my own. Instead, since we were both in our 40s and used to running our own lives (we lived in our separate homes until just 2 yrs ago), I guess what I did was what many have suggested here - I left caring for Jim's health up to Jim. A grave error on my part, if you'll pardon the dark pun.

Since you've brought it up, I'll hash out the problem of Jim's infection here. Did he get infected after his last negative test and before we had sex? Possible, but Jim nearly always had safe sex, so I don't know either way for sure. Did I infect him? Based on what I've read about condom performance, it's unlikely; but unfortunately there isn't a 100% guarantee there. In most of my posts, I've tried to refrain from going down this path, as I didn't want to get embroiled into a discussion of whether he was infected even though we used condoms. Regardless of differing opinions, I still have to consider that as a possibility.

One of the things I discussed with my doctor, when we were trapped in the hospital all weekend during a blizzard back in March after having just gotten Jim's diagnoses, was why neither he (my doctor) nor I had suggested that Jim be retested during our years together. Though my doctor's partner was handling Jim's case, my doctor had seen Jim many times, as Jim had accompanied me to my doctor appts for nearly 4 yrs. All I can say now, since nothing in the past can be changed, is that all three of us were fools.

Yes, I fooled myself into complacency about HIV by outliving Randy by 14 yrs, by surviving PCP, by staying alive on newer meds. I should have never forgotten how close to death I came. I should have never grown accustomed to regaining some of my health. I should have never had the chance to believe my death wasn't inevitable and imminent. I should have never been lucky enough to fall in love again and think a "normal" life might be possible. I should have stayed miserable, sick, and alone; and perhaps Jim would still be alive today. Now for the rest of my life, I'll be wondering whether the condoms didn't protect us, and beating myself up for not pressing Jim to be tested.

Don't worry about me. thunter asked a valid question, even if it had nothing to do with this topic and was posed in a rude manner. As Jim's death was quite sudden (73 days from the inital symptoms till his death, with 60 of those days spent in the hospital and 9 at home with hospice), and as he passed away only 175 days ago, it's all still fresh for me and not like those comments ripped the scab back off of a healed wound. As I recently mentioned to my mom as we planned for my visit home at Christmas, it's all still going to be bad for a while. The first holidays without Jim are coming up, and then as we move into 2009, I'll get to relive those 60 days through March (including my 47th bday on the 14th) and April when Jim was tortured in the hospital (not only did the two rounds of chemo not work; but Jim suffered severe "hospital psychosis" (from being moved through a dozen rooms during those 2 months) and was starved to death for 4 days before being sent home one weekend (which ended with the ambulance returning him to the hospital)). I've got too many tragic, sad memories to deal with, and cry about, to let someone jerk my chain with an inconsiderate question.

If this was explained somewhere in that mammoth thread and I missed it, I apologize. I didn't see it.

LOL I think I've probably apologized enough times already (in other threads) for my long posts. Sorry, but I think that short quips and tiny answers aren't always a proper way to "discuss" an issue. Like others have mentioned in various threads, I have found some members here are quick to pounce with venomous responses. So sometimes I feel obligated to lay out my train of thought for reaching an opinion that I've decided to voice. I hope that rather than pick out one line to harp on, they'll be able to see my logic and actually discuss where their thoughts differ.

But if we're so intent on painting this DJ kid here as such a "typhoid Mary", and for quarantines as a not-so-bad idea, I just couldn't help that it did come to mind above when reading all this...just how did AIDS sneak up on someone like Jim?

I thought "typhoid Mary" might have raised some hackles; but I thought it was an apt description. This guy is known positive and knowingly having unprotected sex. If the stats hold true, then he's also been infecting people - who could then be "unknowingly" continuing to spread the disease even further.

As I mentioned about harping about one line, I tried to lay out how and why a quarantine could be appropriate in the event of an epidemic. Whether a quarantine is right or wrong, and whatever any of us thinks about it, I am certain that a situation could occur where a gov't or a local populace might demand such a drastic action. They tried during the initial years of the HIV outbreak in America, so I can imagine (and did explain this already) a scenario in which a quarantine might be implemented and could work to contain an epidemic. I was not saying that a quarantine should have been used against HIV; but I thought it was disingenuous of some posts to speak as if quarantines were never a viable option. I mean even hospitals have implemented small-scale quarantine conditions (not as one post postulated as an "entire population, seal the borders" kind of action) on some of their patients for their health or the health of others. So I side with the medical professionals that sometimes a quarantine is a viable public health safety option and not rule them, out of hand, as rubbish.

But you're right, in future I'll be more specific as to whether I'm being general or ... um ... specific.

I am sorry if the bulk of this post is a hijack; but I did try to respond to some issues that were raised about my more on-topic posts earlier in the thread. I still don't understand how Jim acquiring AIDS or my failure to have Jim test during our years together has anything to do with the topic of the gay DJ in NC spreading HIV (though in a 6-degrees of separation sort of way, I do have HIV and I do come from NC LOL); but inquiring minds wondered and if you ever read either of my big threads here (spinning wheels, treading water) or my personal site, then you know I'm never one to shy away from telling an honest tale of my life - no matter how many tangents I have to take to get back to the point of my stories. ROFL

The gist of what I've gathered from this thread and others about the similar base issue is that some people think that they are their brother's keepers and feel obligated to not spread, and to stop the spread of, a very deadly disease. Others seem to not care and live in a world where it's every man for himself. To me it actually sounds like some here think it's okay for this known positive guy to be having unprotected sex; that getting his sexual satisfaction is more important than passing a deadly disease to others. If this is a discussion about who's responsible, of course I think both parties bear responsibility (though I'll leave my thoughts about the percentage of responsibility of each partner for a more appropriate thread). However, I thought we were discussing a person who knows his status, and has already even been punished by the government, and yet obviously is continuing to spread an infectious disease - a disease that I don't think should be taken lightly (as I thought insinuated by the post that claimed HIV was a different disease now, hence my references to meds, myself, Randy and Jim)

I don't believe criminalizing sexual conduct is the correct solution for this problem as it presents it's own problems, as have been pointed out in this thread (responsibility of each partner, whether seroconversion occurs, the definition of unprotected sex, whether the threat of punishment will discourage testing); but what is the solution then when a hiv+ person knowingly, repeatedly has unprotected sex exposing a segment of the population to a known deadly disease? Surely no one here thinks that it's okay for him to continue this behavior, right?

the other dude who was finding guys on craigslist and deliberately infecting them disgusted me. but i kinda feel bad for this dj dude. like, yeah, he should have used a condom but some times people slip. ... i mean, shouldnt there be some intent?

and speaking of "behavior", what about these examples from this thread. Aren't both men equally morally, if not legally, wrong? One guy's intent is to infect others. The DJ's intent was in getting his rocks off, even though he knew he could possibly be infecting others. Both exhibit a serious disregard for the health and safety of their fellow man.

I didn't mean to be quite this long-winded, so I really am sorry for such a "mammoth" posts, folks. I hope you'll excuse the hijack since I did try to add back to the original topic.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

I also am impressed with your honesty and courage. You are above lashing out at people on this board, even when rudely attacked yourself. That is truly refreshing no matter how "epic" your post tend to be:)

Getting back on topic - I think the DJ is cute too but agree with Philly that I am sure it is wall to wall Britney Spears at his bar in between hits on the pipe. That would perhaps explain his inabilities to "wrap it up". Or maybe he is just dumb?

Well from watching that news report on whether or not he should have a closed hearing, aside from noticing how cute he was, he did rather impress me as a deer in headlights when looking into the camera. Does that make him an innocent Bambi or some out of touch crack whore, I dunno. The lights appeared to be on but nobody was home looking out the windows.

I've noticed that no matter how long a post is around here. People will always latch onto that one sentence or phrase that rubs them the wrong way and take off running with it, ignoring the bigger picture at hand. One can only hope that they find it in themselves to step back from their emotions from time to time to see it.

For the topic at hand, I believe the guy was wrong in doing what he did. I also believe that the guy who gave him the new STD was wrong in what he did and should be facing some charges of his own. Tit for tat here. This is liken to the belief that it's only one individual's fault when adultery charges are brought up against one person. There was someone else involved in this act and that person should be held accountable as well. (Yeah I watched Boston Legal this week when Denny & Allan were brought up on Adultery Charges but the woman involved was not. Hilarious but poignant.)

Tim, you come back with more of the same rude, disrepectful attitude despite numerous warnings issued in this thread. You are this close to being given a time out. Post in this thread again and you will be. Don't forget it will be TO#2 for you.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

no problem even if your questions were off-topic for this thread. I hope you took some time to read my stories in the Spinning Wheels and Treading Water threads about the hell Jim and I went through during this past Feb - June. Thankfully, after I lost the car (it was repo-ed), lost the house, and had to sell off Jim's belongings, I did get another place for me and the dogs to live. Now, if I could only figure out whether life is still worth living, force myself to deal with the puking, and get back onto my meds so I don't end up dead myself, things would be super.

and, trying to bring you back to the topic (once again), I still stand by my line of questioning

what is the solution then when a hiv+ person knowingly, repeatedly has unprotected sex exposing a segment of the population to a known deadly disease? Surely no one here thinks that it's okay for him to continue this behavior, right?

any ideas on what to do when anyone (e.g the DJ in the case) continues to knowingly go around spreading HIV? I don't want to tell you what to write; but something a litte more constructive that saying you'd like to screw the guy would help move this discussion along.

anybody else got any ideas? Plenty of people seem to think criminalizing this behavior to not be the right action to take, so what should be done then? Nothing and let him continue infecting people? Personally, I don't know what should be done. At least the law (in NC, where this situation occurred) has taken some sort of action in trying to stop him from knowingly spreading HIV.

mikie(who really can write shorter posts when he doesn't have as much to say LOL)

Even the back country judge seems to be trying to cut the guy some slack. Putting him on probation and house arrest has definitely failed. I think while many of us are in agreement that education on HIV, modes of transmission, etc. has failed we also have to remember that the negative population is the majority in this world. They act and base their/our laws out of fear and yes sometimes ignorance. It's their fear and ignorance that might just bring this whole quarantining us into reality because of people like this DJ who's motive seems to only get his rocks off.

anybody else got any ideas? Plenty of people seem to think criminalizing this behavior to not be the right action to take, so what should be done then? Nothing and let him continue infecting people?

I have an idea. He could be placed on an outpatient mental health commitment. Given his behavior he would certainly meet criteria. Basically he would have to go to therapy and if he didn't go law enforcement would pick him up and escort him to a mental health center for evaluation. It would keep him out of the legal system, and the media, and help him work out his issues about HIV and the consequences of his current behavior.

I have an idea. He could be placed on an outpatient mental health commitment. Given his behavior he would certainly meet criteria. Basically he would have to go to therapy and if he didn't go law enforcement would pick him up and escort him to a mental health center for evaluation. It would keep him out of the legal system, and the media, and help him work out his issues about HIV and the consequences of his current behavior.

And an excellent idea it is too! Maybe you should present it to some lawmakers as a bill. Anyone can write a bill right?

The point I was attempting to make is that I believe a significant number of responders on this thread are supportive of Obama. And, it is acceptable to reason that to support him is to take what he said to heart and go out of your way if necessary and be your brother’s keeper. Even at cost to yourself.

I myself have said for some time that we have a moral obligation to be our brother and sister’s keeper. While it is true that when it comes to sex and STI transmission that both partners shoulder equal responsibility, it becomes too slippery a slope to absolve oneself of his or her own obligation to disclose simply to facilitate the act of getting laid which I would argue is not a necessity. Do I hold people with HIV to a higher standard? No, I do not. Nor do I hold them to any less. I'm also HIV positive and I was aware of the risk of unprotected sex and to some extent, knowingly allowed myself to be infected through my own negligence. I never actively sought HIV positive partners but I knew that by my actions I would likely become infected. I've also been forthright with all of my partners both pre and post diagnosis as to what I knew my status to be at the time. Further, pre-diagnosis, I informed my partner(s) what the possibilities were of me being infected but not having tested positive. As well, I shared what activities I had engaged in to place me at risk. I went out of my way when I had to. Still, I harbor guilt that I may have infected someone else even though they had full knowledge and accepted the risk.

As to the issue of quarantine; never was it nor could it ever be an acceptable solution for this kind of disease. Even at the GRID stage, it was presumed that it was blood borne and not airborne. Rational, intelligent, knowledgeable individuals knew it was possible to protect one self. After all, it was not expanding dramatically. Ergo, to quarantine would usurp basic human rights and freedoms for no justifiable reason. Something which is 100% counter to what we stand for as a nation and as citizens of this nation. To suggest otherwise is to attempt to remove yourself from the responsibility of your own actions. We are talking about adults in a consensual relationship. You have a right to say no. Conversely, you also have a right to request protection, heterosexual, homosexual, married or single. You also have a right to pursue legal action should the other party violate the spirit of the agreement that you chose to enter into.

In the context of this particular case, Mr. Weaver by his prior negligent activity AND subsequent court case and the resultant verdict, relinquished his right to exercise his freedom of non-disclosure. He could no longer claim ignorance and he violated the HIV infection regulations set for him. He still shows no remorse, nor responsibility for his behavior which in this instance is clearly criminal. We must hold him accountable as it is the right thing to do in order that others rights are not violated or until such time as we believe him capable of making a rational decision in the best interests of his partner(s). It is what you buy into when you are born and further if you expect to live in a society of law and order.

Lastly, what the news media did here was wrong and we must also hold them accountable.

The government should have quarantined people in the begining back when this disease started spreading in the early 1980's

Don't worry: It's never too late for a (chemical) quarantine. Why are they going to treat anybody immediately? To help us? They couldn't care less! Their aim is to protect the negatives ("Swiss statement")!!!

Your previous response to RapidRod is an ad hominem fallacy. Additionally, unless I've missed something, we are not talking about Switzerland or it's response(s) here. We are speaking to the policies of the United States. We may want to open up the discussion further to include Switzerland as well but please stay on topic. For me, this is a serious topic for discussion and should not be treated lightly.

Additionally, unless I've missed something, we are not talking about Switzerland or it's response(s) here. We are speaking to the policies of the United States. We may want to open up the discussion further to include Switzerland as well but please stay on topic.

On the other hand, since the truth of the charge in this case is proved by an argument from authority, ie rests on an uncontested charge brought by the public health people, perhaps an emotional response is valuable.

There is a great sense for me that HIV-positive people are marked men (and women) in a way that HIV-negative people are not in terms of policing of their sexual behaviour. Question: does this feeling promote secrecy and bloody-mindedness or openess and change?

The Swiss position is instructive.

If you agree with the reading of the science in the now infamous "Swiss statement", the risk of transmission from anal/vaginal sex with effective treatment alone is (in population terms) marginal and comparable to no treatment + using condoms.

Disclosure under these circumstances doesn't add anything from public health point of view. On a 1-to-1 basis it may in terms of where you come down on its importance in the context of acceptance or perception of small risks of transmission.

The Swiss law now seems to say you must disclose if you do or may possibly pose some kind of sexual health risk to your partner every time you have sex. Tested, untested, married, unmarried, condoms, no condoms, whatever you do, penetrative or not, each time. Otherwise you may be guilty of a crime. It remains to be clarified if this obligation entails an obligation to request disclosure. Since the Swiss courts are pretty active on HIV prosecutions I expect we will have this clarified pretty soon.

Before people come back with a strong statement on the relative protective merit of condoms v treatment they might like to read this short report:

No, the Swiss statement has a lot to do with Switzerland since we are speaking in regards to law,...

"They conclude by stating that the Commission thinks that unprotected sex between a positive person on antiretroviral treatment and without an STI, and an HIV-negative person, does not comply with the criteria for an ďattempt at propagation of a dangerous diseaseĒ according to section 231 of the Swiss penal code nor for ďan attempt to engender grievous bodily harmĒ according to section122, 123 or 125."

I would have thought that since you pointed to it you read it first. My mistake. (Now THAT'S sarcasm!) I don't take the issue lightly. Nor will I accept invalid premises or rhetoric as good argument on behalf of faulty reasoning.

They conclude by stating that the Commission thinks that unprotected sex between a positive person on antiretroviral treatment and without an STI, and an HIV-negative person, does not comply with the criteria for an “attempt at propagation of a dangerous disease”

Sadly, the lawyers didn't buy it, hence my elaboration of the ridiculous ad infinitum of disclosure that Swiss law seems to entail now. The "Swiss statement" was designed to mitigate the frequent Swiss prosecutions, and perhaps bring some measure of peace of mind to people in sero-different relationships on risk to the HIV-negative person, and risk of having their loved on ripped from their beds and into prison. Courts seems to have taken the opposite view.

I find it disingenuous to try and limit this discussion to the US (1) because different states have different laws (2) globally, criminalisation is a big and present issue, witness much discussion at the 17th International AIDS Conference, preceding conference on prevention, UNGASS and the like (3) the question of feeling like a pariah now your HIV-positive is common and without jurisdiction, and discussions like this no doubt reinforce the self-hatred and shame that newly diagnosed, or even longtime diagnosed, people often feel (4) I am in England.

I really wonder what people new to these forums think when reading this thread. I really wonder what response people would get if they posted here about their risk taking in search of advice/support, perhaps advice/support on how to be better/less risky in future.

Logic demonstrates consistency, and in the end, in these cases, does not tell you what to do or which judgement to make. These are pragmatic, principled and human issues. There is no logical solution to the public heath issue this case raises, except perhaps (and somewhat taking logic as having an applied aspect) to put everyone on treatment on diagnosis, which, modelling suggests, would kill the epidemic in 25-20 years. However, this conflicts with, erm, issues of practicality, principle and civil rights.

Logic does not show the fear etc in the headline "Gay DJ put on house arrest for 2nd HIV charge".

Liet's emotional response seems to me completely valid and on-topic, and at least needs acknowledgement. Logic can be cruel and is rarely, when you dig deep, value-free or without a framework of value-driven norms (I refer to my previous comment on "marked").

I am really enjoying this thread now the steam has gone out of my head. I have learned a lot from people, including theose I obviously disagree with.

I am not enjoying thinking about my +ve friend who I have left at his 40th with his great friends, me I think being the only one who he has told he has HIV in the few years since his diagnosis.

The statement was motivated to achieve several aims: two primary ones:

1) Reflect the epidemiology of transmission in sero-discordant HETERO couples with one partner treated and medically followed.

2) Have the Swiss medical establishment take a stand against wanton prosecution for HIV transmission. So, doctors talking to lawmakers and judges through science.

The law and legal decisions saying one can be POTENTIALLY criminally liable for transmission in so many different scenarios has good points and bad points.

A good effect would be more dialogue about sex practices, history, and risk between partners before they screw!

We know the downsides....

By the way, the idea that it is so easy in Switzerland to prosecute someone for criminal transmission is not true. Doctors, lawyers, social workers, AIDS NGO legal services, police, and public opinion are not universally behind bringing such cases.

Logged

ďFrom each, according to his ability; to each, according to his needĒ 1875 K Marx

They put him on house arrest for unprotected sex, which could be considered as attempted murder, but there was a guy in texas, that just got 25 years for spitting in a police officers face, this world is crazy..,

I would leave all here who are Obama (supporters) with this thought. It is a quote from him at one of his rally's...

"It is that, I am my brother's keeper. I am my sister's keeper. That makes this country work."

That is all I want to add to this thread.

Nice words but that's all they are, words. If we truly were our brother's keeper and sister's keeper and if that what 'makes this country work' (and you can apply this to just about any country), there would be no poverty, no wars, no people without health cover etc.

Reality is that it is a dog eat dog world with every man for himself, more so in some places in others. It's greed and power that makes most of our countries 'work', not empty platitudes.

Look out for number one, protect yourself if you want to be protected. Alternatively, do what you want and live with the consequences.

If unprotected sex is akin to attempted murder than so is going to work with the flu, which kills thousands each year.

People need to shape up, the criminal laws are the new frontline of activism. They don't stop HIV transmission. They just herd us into a reservation away from "normal" people. if we don't wanna be non-persons in 5 years time we need to get on the case. Just cos it's the law don't mean it's right. Before you know it we'll have to sit on the back of the bus.- matt

Indonesia, well a certain region within the country, is set to begin tagging some people living with HIV.

As usual reporting not accurate, eg knowingly gave a woman potentially life-threatening hepatitis B (as knowingly = intended to harm, it's always knowingly/intentional in the press even though the charge was for reckless ie non-intentional transmission, hmmm).

As usual reporting not accurate, eg knowingly gave a woman potentially life-threatening hepatitis B (as knowingly = intended to harm, it's always knowingly/intentional in the press even though the charge was for reckless ie non-intentional transmission, hmmm).

They got drunk n had sex without condoms on the spur of the moment, tis said, like that's a really sensible thing to do.

- matt

Thanks Newt. The first link you shared says the prosecution used DNA evidence. Like his hair on her clothing? ? or like a blood test? The news story doesn't provide details. And the second link talks about GBH - what is that exactly? (I've heard of GHB here in the USA)

Previous (HIV) case law and expert opinion shows that this is not enough on its own to prove transmission in a criminal case. IE another person could have been an intermediary, or, in the case of hep B, it could be caught by non-intimate (non-sexual, household) contact.

If the guy hadn't pleaded guilty this would prob have been thrown out in court.

...in the case of hep B, it could be caught by non-intimate (non-sexual, household) contact.

If the guy hadn't pleaded guilty this would prob have been thrown out in court.

You know, I wondered about that when I first read about this case. This poor guy really had some crap legal advice. I can't help but think that if he wasn't a Turkish immigrant, this case never would have got as far as a courtroom. It seems to me that a disproportionate number of immigrants are being charged with these types of crimes. Pisses me off no end.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts